Friday, August 06, 2010

It's been a few years now since the Green Party made its decision to adopt a leadership model. At the time it was a hotly contested issue and, in a high turnout, the referendum resulted in more than 70% voting to reform the old system.

However, since then there has been little discussion of how to implement the new system, I believe in order to help heal some of the wounds and concentrate on politics, funnily enough. That's all very sensible but the fact is with poorly contested elections the party has essentially allowed inertia decide for it what we want from our leader.

I'll get out of the way right now that Caroline Lucas is a superb politician and that I've taken a decision not to publicly back either deputy candidate (Adrian or Derek) and I shall be voting after the conference hustings in order to mull my decision over in the most fulsome manner possible, although I'm happy to hear your opinions on the election. So this post is not about them but about the roles they seek to fill.

What this post *is* about is whether our reluctance to talk about what we want from our leadership team has left us in a situation where we use the posts simply to raise the profile of our two candidates best placed to win a Parliamentary seat. I'm not sure that's what they should be for.

Two years ago we elected Caroline and Adrian not just on the basis of their excellent personal qualities but also on the basis that we wanted them to become MPs and the added national media profile of these positions undoubtedly helped. We were right at the time, I think, but this shouldn't be the ongoing model which would end up prioritising two Parliamentary seats above the rest of our work.

Now Caroline is elected, for example, there is a good case that she definitely should not be the leader so that we do not become a one person party. Caroline's role as MP gives her the highest profile in the Greens regardless of internal position and if Adrian had run for leader with a new running mate, for example, we'd have upped his media profile and given the job to someone with time to do it. Heresy you say!

I'm not just saying this because our one woman/one man rule means that the only way any woman in the entire party could become part of the leadership team is to beat Caroline - although I do think we need to change the rule to 'at least one woman' so that half the party that is currently denied a realistic shot at a leadership role can be admitted to the club.

The facts are that Caroline is a very busy person. She’s being excellent in her constituency, in the House, in the press, radio and on TV. As someone who provides inspiration to party members she is absolutely second to none. However, in terms of day to day party leadership we’re far less well served. Politically, organisationally and in simple terms of having time to just listen to party members across the country she just does not have the time.

I probably don't need to point out that this is not a criticism of Caroline but a statement of what it means to have our one MP attempt to take on the job of party leader too. Inevitably it means we don't think our leader needs to devote any time to the role, but if it's important then they clearly do.

We need to seriously address what the consequences are of having a leader who has no time to listen to the party she leads or devote serious time to members. We need to flesh out the responsibilities of leader and deputy so our structures are more meaningful than simply ways of getting press attention while the party drifts politically.

The thing is if we were consciously saying that the leader faces outward, providing a shining light to the public, while the deputy takes an organisational role, providing more internal leadership this would be fine. We need someone who provides traction between the disparate and decentralised local parties and the party centre - but we don't say this.

The deputy role is used as a lesser version of leader. That's fine for Norwich South but not so great for the national party who are essentially left to their own devices. I think we can do better than that and right now a lot of people in the party feel that they, their local party and even their region doesn't matter to the party.

I have to say that I think it's strange that we took such a radical shift in our structures and then devoted no time afterwards to making sure they actually worked for the party in practice. Perhaps the bigwigs have discussed it, but not with us if they have. I think we need to start exploring some of these questions, although I certainly don't claim to have all the answers.

Do we have a leadership model where local parties and activists think they are taken seriously? Has the role of leader and deputy changed in wake of the election? How do we support Caroline in her phenomenally difficult task? And of course how can she ensure that what she's doing is what the party wants of her?

33 comments:

I think you need to account for the role GPEX and the GPRC play too. The chair of the party executive covers some of what you are talking about here.

I think you're right, though, that a sensible split would be for the leader to be the outward face and the deputy leader to be the inward face.

Given that Caroline gives a very mainstream interpretation of the part as our outward face (quite right too), I'm sort of leaning towards Derek to provide a more challenging, rabble-rousing internal face although I think Adrian has done tremendous work.

Thanks, Jim. This is an important topic. (I've been addressing a different aspect(s) of it in my little 'series' on the Party over here at Bright Green: http://brightgreenscotland.org/index.php/2010/08/democratising-and-professionalising-our-party-further/ ) I don't agree at all that there is a case for Caroline not being our Leader, now that she is an MP. On the contrary: we would be a laughing stock now if we used that argument to depose her. For the fact of the matter is that our one MP simply IS our Leader. All we are doing really is recognising the fact. The media and commentariat would find it entirely incomprehensible, if we didn't.

Jim, this makes good sense. I wouldn't want Caroline not the leader this time round, but the Deputy should be someone with masses of time on his hands. The only candidate with that, is Derek. Adrian will be highly involved in leading Norwich, should they become the maj. group on the council. With him and Caroline very burdened, we need a person who has the time to really work at a very involved level with local members across the country.

And I wholeheartedly agree with the point that the leadership model should not be used to promote candidates who have chances of becoming MPs. They will become MPs if the local work and history is there. Not if they are called Leader or Dep Leader of the Party.

I think the Greens seem to enjoy making themselves as electorally unfavourable as possible.

Keith Taylor was almost readopted in Pavilion as candidate because that seemed 'nicer' and 'fairer'.

Significant numbers of prominent activists didn't trust their colleagues enough for any of them to be leader and worked against the referendum.

Now people think Caroline and Adrian are too busy to be leader and deputy leader.

The whole point of the party is to win seats, gain influence and power, and change things. Adrian and Caroline should continue in their positions. If there are issues with areas that 'don't matter' then you need to either strengthen the role of the party chair (or god forbid GPRC). How many times do you hear the Libs, Lab or Conservatives saying that their respective leaders can't deal with the pressure of being leader along with their very important roles in opposition/government. Green groups around the world see their most prominent elected representative manage both roles. And a key reason why regions/parties don't matter is because they can't get off their arses and get people elected. If you are genuinely a party of localism and decisions made a the lowest possible level then perhaps at some stage you should implement that rather than consistent complaining that no one cares about you unless you are one of a few seats. Compare and contrast every other party in the country and the greens are the least disciplined when it comes to target strategies. The problem with the party is that minimal effort is put into winning elections from significant groupings like GreenLeft who seem to enjoy sending out press releases that no one ever reads.

Derek Wall is a very nice and charismatic person who has achieved diddly squat electorally apart from winning party elections (not a huge achievement as its generally pass the parcel).

Ultimately those involved in these discussions need to decide what they want. I strongly suggest that those who want Derek as deputy leave the party and join pressure groups or similar organistions where they can build policy without worrying about electoral sensitivities . Those who want to get the party somewhere should perhaps vote for people with a proven track record of actually winning elections. Too many people in the party seem to find that a distasteful notion.

The party seems to hate success. Your blog sums this up - suspicions that she won't/can't devote time to the role, bigwigs discussing things behind closed doors/instant emphasis on issues of her not doing what the party wants of her. The focus should be on what she can achieve as leader.

I think the Greens seem to enjoy making themselves as electorally unfavourable as possible.

Keith Taylor was almost readopted in Pavilion as candidate because that seemed 'nicer' and 'fairer'.

Significant numbers of prominent activists didn't trust their colleagues enough for any of them to be leader and worked against the referendum.

Now people think Caroline and Adrian are too busy to be leader and deputy leader.

The whole point of the party is to win seats, gain influence and power, and change things. Adrian and Caroline should continue in their positions. If there are issues with areas that 'don't matter' then you need to either strengthen the role of the party chair (or god forbid GPRC). How many times do you hear the Libs, Lab or Conservatives saying that their respective leaders can't deal with the pressure of being leader along with their very important roles in opposition/government. Green groups around the world see their most prominent elected representative manage both roles. And a key reason why regions/parties don't matter is because they can't get off their arses and get people elected. If you are genuinely a party of localism and decisions made a the lowest possible level then perhaps at some stage you should implement that rather than consistent complaining that no one cares about you unless you are one of a few seats. Compare and contrast every other party in the country and the greens are the least disciplined when it comes to target strategies. The problem with the party is that minimal effort is put into winning elections from significant groupings like GreenLeft who seem to enjoy sending out press releases that no one ever reads.

Derek Wall is a very nice and charismatic person who has achieved diddly squat electorally apart from winning party elections (not a huge achievement as its generally pass the parcel).

Ultimately those involved in these discussions need to decide what they want. I strongly suggest that those who want Derek as deputy leave the party and join pressure groups or similar organistions where they can build policy without worrying about electoral sensitivities . Those who want to get the party somewhere should perhaps vote for people with a proven track record of actually winning elections. Too many people in the party seem to find that a distasteful notion.

The party seems to hate success. Your blog sums this up - suspicions that she won't/can't devote time to the role, bigwigs discussing things behind closed doors/instant emphasis on issues of her not doing what the party wants of her. The focus should be on what she can achieve as leader.

Anon: "How many times do you hear the Libs, Lab or Conservatives saying that their respective leaders can't deal with the pressure of being leader along with their very important roles in opposition/government."

I hear members of all those parties criticising their leaders on a host of issues including them not being able to handle the pressure in terms far, far beyond my rather mild thoughts all the time. That is because they are real political parties that actually represent something, not fan clubs.

"a key reason why regions/parties don't matter is because they can't get off their arses and get people elected."

Seeing as the point of the (previous) post is that NW and SE performed well at the Euros, and were closer to getting someone elected than the target Eastern region - they proved in practice they are capable of getting an MEP - but we need to shift the commitment of the party away from the East, who were not able to deliver, to SW and NW to help them achieve that.

"I strongly suggest that those who want Derek as deputy leave the party"

You are doing Adrian a massive disservice by saying things like this and I'm sure he'd be horrified to see one of his supporters (anonymously) saying such divisive things which you will never hear from his lips.

I'm not surprised you were too embarrassed by these comments to do so under your own name which would do you no credit at all.

On your last point I think Caroline shares my concerns about being expected to be able to deliver in a host of different roles. In my view we are asking the impossible of her. That's not doing her any favours and it is a recipe for allowing the party to either drift politically or become synonymous with everything she does - even when it is not party policy.

I find it most amusing that a debate over the deputy leadership can happen without mentioning the politics of either candidate. This is a degree of managerialism further than New Labour ever brought us.

Joe: if you actually read the post you'd have seen that I explicitly say that the post is not about the candidates or the election - but the role.

Of those who have mentioned the candidates in the discussion it seems to me they have talked about politics, but as they are responding to a post about structures then it's understandable the focus has not been on the candidates politcs - because, as I say in para 3 "this post is not about them but about the roles they seek to fill."

And Joe Otten - Rupert is correct. When you leave your party that panders to the populist views of the country on a range of issues, that is complicit in torture, mass murder and growing inequalities, we'll take lectures from you.

If we're going to have a go at a Leadership election, we need only look at Labour's utter shambles, where the only left candidate is there for sheer tokenism. What a disgrace New Labour is. You can say how great SureStart is till the cows come home, but your party failed the people, failed the peoples in other countries and failed yourselves. It's time to think whether you really can "REFORM" a neo-liberal party from the inside, or whether it'd be more worthwhile joining a truly radical socialist party, like ours.

Anonymous: "The problem with the party is that minimal effort is put into winning elections from significant groupings like GreenLeft who seem to enjoy sending out press releases that no one ever reads."

Your vicious attack on Green Left is totally unwarranted. Many GL activists were deeply involved in the elections in their areas, indeed they often played a more significant role than some other party members. I worked hared in the constituency where I was a parliamentary candidate, attending all hustings etc, as did many other GL members. Plus I worked hared in our target ward in Lambeth and as local press officer in supporting the campaign there. I also went to both Lewisham and Brighton to assist the campaigns there. I know of many GL members who went to Brighton or Lewisham or Norwich and who worked hard in target wards in London.

Green Left are also many of the most prominent people in campaigns such as Stop the War which give us a profile with many voters and contributed to getting new members into the party.

Your attack is without any foundation and seems part of the 'red baiting' which a small minority of the party engage in.

As regards the regions, it is easy to state that they should "get off their arses" but many people from SW, Yorkshire etc went to Brighton and Norwich etc to help. However, they often have very few resources in their own areas and do need help from the national party.

I agree with what Jim says here about this - the party is a national party or it is not. I recommended GPRC at its last meeting to take note of Alan Thornett's piece sent to Respect after the general election on the dangers of having one MP and two target constituencies and how the national party was starved of political and financial resources because of that.

We are now in the same situation, and while there are differences with Respect five years ago, there are also some similarities. It is important to learn from the political experiences of other parties and not to make similar errors. I agree that NW (where Manchester in particular are really active) and South West need more support and resources.

Finally, your comment on people leaving the party because they do not agree with your viewpoint is beneath contempt. Any political party worth its salt has open and democratic arguments and ideological differences. That is the difference between a party and a sect.

Anonymous. I wholehearted disagree and am offended by your post.I have worked electorally for the party for the past 5 years unquestioningly and was instrumental in the election of two of the three Cambridge Green Councillors. This morning I will be returning to Norwich where I shall help them with their unexpected council elections. I am also a committed member of Green Left.As Joseph says it is often GL members that are the main ones doing the leg work both electorally and with campaigns.Your anti-democratic viewpoint and your deluded and misguided viewpoints of one group within the party bring your comments into complete shame. Indeed I am sure Adrian would not condemn the vitriol that seems to be coming from key supporters of his to the very idea of Derek standing against him.You and your attitude do nothing for the party, and, while I shall not be so rude as he\she is. I shall say you should seriously review your position as it is one which I don't think you can uphold in debate.As one mentioned by one person commenting on one of Jim's earlier posts, 'the north Korean element is at work'!

My guess is that anon is outside of the party and has engaged (with some success) in some stirring.

If we deal with the issue of Leadership, we have to look at exactly what our Leader team were asked to do. We moved from a system of Principal Speakers - two people who spoke for the party but didn't even have a vote on its Exec committee - to a system where two co-leaders or a leader/deputy would have a vote on GPEx.

We did not hand our first Leadership team significant power beyond 2 votes on GPEx. In the first half of 2009 that meant in Exec votes about being more ambitious financially, more conservative voices prevailed. So we have to recognise that leadership is within the current framework of the party.

What has been clear is that in their public facing role, Caroline and Adrian have been a huge success. I remember in 2004 when I joined the Exec, we owed £40k with nothing in the bank and membership and councillor numbers were less than half the level they are now. Most of that membership growth has come in the last two years, and it means we can plan for the future from a financially healthy position.

The whole Exec is vital, not just the leadership. I don't think we want any centralisation of power, and that is why I see the role of party Chair and Elections Co-ordinator on GPEx as being so vital. If we are to avoid centralisation or heaping too much expectation onto two individuals, we need to keep that in mind.

Jim has explained it, but Joe does make a good point that leadership contests should be about politics. Adrian has performed the role for two years at the height of the electoral cycle, and a major advantage for Adrian is that his duties as a councillor can be met flexibly aside from a few fixed meetings. Derek managed to combine Principal Speaker with full time work before and it is reasonable to assume he could manage it again, so maybe more internal politics and direction debate from here on in?

In hindsight I was a bit more brusque to Joe than I meant to be. Joe and Peter are right that elections of this kind need to be about politics as well as the specific qualities of the candidates and the fit they have with the role. It's just this post wasn't about that.

I'm trying to highlight the posts that come out in favour of either candidate in my round-ups although personally I'm going to keep my powder dry as there are a series of other important issues I'd like to highlight (like this one) and the responses to them may well influence how I vote.

The key point that Peter raises that I think would have been well worth raising in the post is that the leader/deputy are part of an executive who's profile in the party is *low* but whose importance in the running of the party is *high*.

This also goes for the committees (like Green World Editorial Board or SOC) who do help shape what the party is but who are often made up of the only people to put themselves forward (not always though!)

Sorry Joe, forgot that you're a former Green who got suckered in to the Lib Dems by their well-fair right wing liberal economic position.

I would not have taken a lecture from you if you were a New Labourite.

You're in even less of a position to lecture because you're a Lib Dem, who basically shat on the hopes of so many of your voters on May 6th. Enjoy the downfall. You'll make the 90 year Liberal wilderness that you've just come out of look like a holiday in Butlins.

Increasing the gap between rich and poor? Retaining Trident whilst making life even harder for ordinary working people? Totally selling out on your party's only consistent policy of electoral reform for a system that nobody wants and which will fall in a referendum anyway?

Where's the spin in that? Still, it's no surprise as here in Cumbria the Lib Dems have been propping up the Tories for years.

Nothing but a party of opportunists who will pay the price. At last they can be held accountable for something other than their naked opportunism. Sadly, a lot of people are going to suffer before we see the back of this self-rigteous pack of liars and double dealers.

Katie, anyone can cherry pick. Read the coalition agreement, and compare it to the Lib Dem and Tory manifestos.

The alternative was instability, debt crisis, another election in 6 months and a Tory majority. We, all progressives, and the country, have done very well out of this.

Everything you accuse us of, are things Labour did for 13 years. If those things make Labour and the Tories politically untouchable, I have to ask you what sort of pluralistic political scenario do you think might be reasonable?

Or are you saying pluralism is a bad idea, and there should always be majority government?

And are we supposed to choose opposition for ever? To never implement any of our policies? Surely that would be a betrayal.

I never thought it would happen... I'm writing a blog comment to support a remark of Joe Otten's...What Joe says about AV is absolutely right. It is truly bizarre of some Greens to oppose AV: when AV will end tactical voting and the 'wasted vote' argument (at least, among those who understand the (fairly simple) system). Well said, Joe. We Greens should give the LibDems some credit - for at least giving us all a shot at electoral reform. (And if we get AV, then we may get AV Plus in due course, and a reformed House of Lords elected by PR, and PR local elections. If we don't get AV, then you can kiss all of that goodbye.)For more details on all this, see e.g. http://broadleftblogging.wordpress.com/2010/07/20/don’t-be-a-dinosaur-get-on-board-in-the-battle-for-av

Can we get this blog back on track please? I'm trying to decide who to vote for. I find both arguments appealing. Caroline is great as a standard bearer for the party because she is so visible and (mostly) so reasonable. But her job as an MP is already twice as challenging as that of a 'normal' MP (one that is backed by a big party). Does she have the time to be more than a figurehead? In our local party we discussed asking her over to the north, but we already assumed that she is probably too busy. What do we expect from a leader, and what from a deputy?

Eveline - if you want a Deputy who will travel to the North to engage voters, then Derek is your best bet. Adrian will be hella busy helping Caroline in Parliament, working very hard on Norwich Council (where we could have a majority). Derek has the time to dedicate to travellling around the country engaging local parties. Plus, he'll be hella awesome at it.

I think Eveline you'll have to look at Adrian's record and judge for yourself. The last two years have been simultaneous Euro / County Council Elections and the General Election, which are busiest two years in the electoral cycle.

Adrian has still found time to visit Sheffield, Birmingham, Islington, Kent, Waveney, Haringey, Leicester, Camden, Witham, Hackney, Brighton, etc... (you get the picture)

Derek was Principal Speaker from 2006 to 2008, and I'm sure he also did a lot of travel round and support for local parties. It would be inaccurate though to say that Derek has more time than Adrian unless both have specified how much time they have outside of their work (or in Adrian's case council) commitments over the coming two years.

I think that is a question that is best answered at hustings, given that anything Adrian to give about how much time he devotes to council business would no doubt be quoted out of context by some of our less scrupulous opponents (as I have been on many occasions from my blog in Liverpool!).

personally I've chosen not to come out in favour of either candidate until I actually vote but I have been follow the election and linking to sites and pieces I see that should help people decide between the two.

I think I shall write a single piece trying to summarise what I've seens of ar (maybe today, maybe not) but there is also an online hustings that you might like to submit your question to.

If you want to submit a question send an email to ero@greenparty.org.uk with the subject header 'hustings question'. Put your name and local party in the email and if your question is for a specific position (either leader or deputy) remember to specify that.

This blog expresses the personal opinions of Jim Jepps and not any organisation he may, or may not, be associated with.

However, whilst there are elections on, here is an imprint just in case; Promoted by J Hicks on behalf of Lewisham Green Party, 77 Duncombe Hill, London, SE23 1QY. Published by blogger.com, who are not responsible in any way for the content of this site.